ORthodox perspective of Traditionalist Catholics
#81
(05-14-2012, 08:37 PM)Azurestone Wrote:
SaintSebastian Wrote:In this regard, its the original sin aspect of that dogma. They began rejecting our understanding of original sin in the 19th century or so, during their period of intense purging of what they believed were Latin corruptions (since the doctrine on original sin was developed in the West in response to Pelagianism, out it went).  But it was not always so. For example, at the pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672, they teach original sin as we do (even citing St. Augustine).

As an aside, there's a similar phenomenon with indulgences, which they now deny.  At the pan-Orthodox Councils of Constantinople in 1727 and 1838 indulgences were affirmed. But now, they'll deny it. Same with Purgatory--it was affirmed in the strongest language by folks like their anti-Roman hero Mark of Ephesus (he only denied their being physical fire, but not the pain, etc.) and early explanations of toll-booths are consistent with our idea of purgatory (toll-booths merely being a symbol for the exacting of satisfaction; later explanations have generally gone too far, however making demons into judges instead of Our Lord).  

Even the primacy has been affirmed on and off--usually in a sedeprivationist way (ie, the Pope fell away from the Church by professing the Filioque, but if he returns to "orthodoxy" he will have the primacy again).  For example, Orthodox saint, Symeon of Thessalonica (a 15th century monk) said:

“One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If this is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff...Let the Bishop of Rome be successor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and the first among the other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Saviour Himself" (Meyendorff, J., ed., the Primacy of Peter, 1992, SVSP: Crestwood, p. 86).

Do you have any references to these council's? I'm curious.

Sure, as far as online goes:

Synod of Jerusalem:
http://catholicity.elcore.net/Confession...theus.html (there's links at the bottom for background--it was essentially their Council of Trent against Protestantism).

This article, translated by Orthodox Bishop Tikhon of San Francisco and the West, explains indulgences in the East and cites those Councils.
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/041125153738.htm
Reply
#82
(05-14-2012, 08:38 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(05-14-2012, 08:01 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: If the orthodox do not deny the Assumption, I stand corrected.

Quote:Why would they accept the current Roman definition of Petrine supremacy when such was not practiced in its current form at any time prior to the schism?

Melkite, what about the Roman definition at Florence?

The Orthodox only deny that she was taken to heaven without dying first.

The Orthodox didn't accept Florence.

Pius XII leaves it an open question as to whether the Blessed Virgin died before being assumed.  Historically, Franciscans have maintained that she did not experience death, while Dominicans maintained that she died first.  Either belief is acceptable according to the dogmatic statement.

And yeah, not accepting Florence is a problem, but as SaintSebastian points out, they really hold what is closer to a sedeprivationist approach to the Papacy, being loyal to Eternal Rome rather than the heretic who happens to have nice white robes in the actual city of Rome.
Reply
#83
(05-14-2012, 04:35 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
Quote:When it comes to your attitude towards the Orthodox, the old proverb "treat others as you would be treated" comes to mind.  They are not irrational beasts, they are Christian men,  Treat them accordingly.

I agree, and I apologize if I have treated them or anyone else badly.

Accepted.




lol
Reply
#84
(05-14-2012, 08:38 PM)Melkite Wrote: The Orthodox didn't accept Florence.

But the bishops of the Byzantine Empire did.
Reply
#85
(05-14-2012, 09:00 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(05-14-2012, 08:38 PM)Melkite Wrote: The Orthodox didn't accept Florence.

But the bishops of the Byzantine Empire did.

And then immediately repudiated it once they had gotten away.  I read somewhere that they were coerced by the Latin bishops to give their assent.  I don't know how historically accurate it is, I've only heard it recently, but it makes sense on the face of it.
Reply
#86
(05-14-2012, 08:54 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Pius XII leaves it an open question as to whether the Blessed Virgin died before being assumed.  Historically, Franciscans have maintained that she did not experience death, while Dominicans maintained that she died first.  Either belief is acceptable according to the dogmatic statement.

I know it's doctrinally acceptable from a technical standpoint, but, and no offense to Pius XII, I trust apostolic tradition over a 19th century papal pronouncement on this one.
Reply
#87
(05-14-2012, 10:39 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(05-14-2012, 08:54 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Pius XII leaves it an open question as to whether the Blessed Virgin died before being assumed.  Historically, Franciscans have maintained that she did not experience death, while Dominicans maintained that she died first.  Either belief is acceptable according to the dogmatic statement.

I know it's doctrinally acceptable from a technical standpoint, but, and no offense to Pius XII, I trust apostolic tradition over a 19th century papal pronouncement on this one.

Sure, I think the same way, though the tradition that Mary was directly Assumed like Elijah is also fairly ancient, so the Pope was being tolerant to let either ancient belief stand.
Reply
#88
(05-14-2012, 10:36 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(05-14-2012, 09:00 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(05-14-2012, 08:38 PM)Melkite Wrote: The Orthodox didn't accept Florence.

But the bishops of the Byzantine Empire did.

And then immediately repudiated it once they had gotten away.  I read somewhere that they were coerced by the Latin bishops to give their assent.  I don't know how historically accurate it is, I've only heard it recently, but it makes sense on the face of it.

The last Divine Liturgy in Hagia Sophia was a Catholic service presided over by the Unionist Patriarch, and Constantine XI, the last emperor, was in union with the Pope.  It was complicated, and some of the Eastern bishops heroically defended the Union.  It is a bit unfair to say that the Schism was caused by Mehmet II, but if the Empire had won there is a decent chance Florence would have stood, eventually.  Especially if the Western monarchs had gotten their act together and saved New Rome.
Reply
#89
(05-14-2012, 08:25 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(05-14-2012, 03:10 PM)Parmandur Wrote: And they claim to not accept the Immaculate Conception, but listen to a hymn about the Theotokos sometime.  Or ask a Russian priest if Mary was guilty of sin, and see if you get punched in the face.  They are implicitly orthodox on these points.

In this regard, its the original sin aspect of that dogma. They began rejecting our understanding of original sin in the 19th century or so, during their period of intense purging of what they believed were Latin corruptions (since the doctrine on original sin was developed in the West in response to Pelagianism, out it went).  But it was not always so. For example, at the pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672, they teach original sin as we do (even citing St. Augustine).

As an aside, there's a similar phenomenon with indulgences, which they now deny.  At the pan-Orthodox Councils of Constantinople in 1727 and 1838 indulgences were affirmed. But now, they'll deny it. Same with Purgatory--it was affirmed in the strongest language by folks like their anti-Roman hero Mark of Ephesus (he only denied their being physical fire, but not the pain, etc.) and early explanations of toll-booths are consistent with our idea of purgatory (toll-booths merely being a symbol for the exacting of satisfaction; later explanations have generally gone too far, however making demons into judges instead of Our Lord).  

Even the primacy has been affirmed on and off--usually in a sedeprivationist way (ie, the Pope fell away from the Church by professing the Filioque, but if he returns to "orthodoxy" he will have the primacy again).  For example, Orthodox saint, Symeon of Thessalonica (a 15th century monk) said:

“One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If this is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff...Let the Bishop of Rome be successor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and the first among the other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Saviour Himself" (Meyendorff, J., ed., the Primacy of Peter, 1992, SVSP: Crestwood, p. 86).


And those teachings really aren't that problematic today except that they are considered dogmatic by the Latin Church. I don't think it's really accurate to say we "began" to reject your teachings on these things in the 19th century. We began to speak using western theological paradigms in the 17th century because of a number of factors such as Jesuit influence, the influence of western culture in Peter's Russia, our first encounters with Protestantism and the fact that many Orthodox nobles and clergy were educated in western institutions.

It was in the 19th century that we began to reject those recently acquired paradigms and move to a more traditional understanding.  Smile
Reply
#90
(05-14-2012, 10:36 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(05-14-2012, 09:00 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(05-14-2012, 08:38 PM)Melkite Wrote: The Orthodox didn't accept Florence.

But the bishops of the Byzantine Empire did.

And then immediately repudiated it once they had gotten away.  I read somewhere that they were coerced by the Latin bishops to give their assent.  I don't know how historically accurate it is, I've only heard it recently, but it makes sense on the face of it.

The idea that the orientals as a whole were coerced doesn't really make sense considering that other schismatic groups--such as the Copts, Armenians, Chaldeans, Maronites, and Syrians (none of which were in the same political situation as the Greeks)--also sent representatives to Florence.

Furthermore, there are prominent examples of Greeks--notably Archbishop Isidore of Kiev and Cardinal Bassilius Bassarion--who remained in union with Rome even after most of their compatriots fell back into schism. Thus, the idea that the Greeks as a whole were coerced into the union seems to lack historical basis. I'm sure some of the Greek clergy were pressured into an agreement by their fellow Eastern hierarchs who--for genuine theological as well as political reasons--ardently supported union. The same can be said for a lot of bishops at a lot of councils though. It's not as if the bishops at Nicaea I weren't pressured by Constantine to accept the homoousion formula.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)